Last week I stumbled across the above book, in O Mahony’s Bookshop, Limerick. I was completely unaware of the radio debate that had taken place on RTE a few hours earlier between the author and the veteran Irish historian and journalist Tim Pat Coogan. I found the title of the book both shocking and intriguing as this weighty tome seemed to rally against the perceived orthodoxy, and whole fabric of accepted modern Irish politics and twentieth century Irish history. After reading the sleeve notes which stated: “Turi presents startling new evidence to prove the man who led Ireland throughout most of the 20th century [De Valera] … was an agent for England” I decided, although immediately sceptical of such a controversial claim, to read the book eager as a historian examine this “new evidence” and determined to try and keep an open mind about the book’s central thesis.

Unfortunately the new evidence promised in the sleeve notes does not appear in the main body of the book. Instead the reader is treated (mistreated?) to a whopping 462 page political rant which re-hashes worn out conspiracy theories and pub talk about ‘Who killed Michael Collins?’. Added to these are the author’s even more fantastic deductions about the War of Independence and Civil War which he arrives at without providing any conclusive documentary evidence. Infact Turi’s whole thesis that De Valera was a British Agent seems based completely on supposition, propaganda stories, wild interpretation of accepted facts, hear say and illogical conjecture. Throughout the book any setbacks that are encountered by those fighting for Irish independence are immediately ascribed to conspiracy by Mr. Turi, who never considers the more realistic possibility that these events were due to bad luck, chance, incompetence or poor decision making. What little he does offer as evidence to prove his claims is regularly liberally interpreted to suit his theories – rather than adjusting his theories to suit the facts.

Turi’s central argument is that the British authorities in Ireland were fully aware of the I.R.B’s plans for the 1916 Rising but allowed the rebellion to take place so that they could organise a “machine gun massacre” of the rebel Irish. According to Turi the British had already ensured the rebellion would failure through the actions of their spy Austin Stack was responsible for the capture of the German arms shipment on the Aud. This and not Eoin Mc Neill’s countermanding order was responsible for the failure of the rebellion. Turi then claims that after his surrender to the British and imprisonment in Kilmainham Jail, De Valera was given a stark choice become a British Agent or else be executed along with Pearse, Connolly and co…

De Valera readily agrees and through the secret machinations of Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, he is appointed leader of Sinn Fein in 1917. This of course was part of a secret British plot to split the Sinn Fein party, code named: “Assignment Sinn Fein” Unfortunately for the British this plot is then foiled by one of the heroes of Mr. Turi’s tale Arthur Griffith. De Valera is arrested by the British and imprisoned in Lincoln Jail, England and then his escape is staged so that De Valera can go to America to sabotage the Irish American groups lobbying the American President to support Irish Independence. This secret operation is dubbed “Assignment America”

Eventually De Valera takes part in “Assignment Ireland” whereby he returns home to destroy Sinn Fein and The I.R.A. From within – he succeeds and the I.R.A. are forced to negotiate with the British. In two further British assignments - ‘Chaos’ and ‘Civil War’ De Valera first ensures that the Irish delegation in the Treaty negotiations will not secure a Republic and then he argues against the Treaty so that he can plunge the south of Ireland into Civil War. This of course is orchestrated by the British because Michael Collins is about to cause trouble for them in the north, and the Civil War will keep him distracted long enough for De Valera’s next assignment - the assassination of both Griffith and Collins.

Turi’s heroes Collins and Griffith of course by how are about to discover De Valera’s role as a British agent. Griffith is murdered after being served arsenic laden chocolates, and Collins’s assassination / murder is organised personally by De Valera and Emmett Dalton in Cork. Collins wasn’t hidden by the I.R.A. ambushers at Bealnablath on 22nd of August 1922 he was actually shot in the back and then in the head by a British agent who was posing as a Free State soldier. The story doesn’t end there – Sean Hales T.D. starts investigating the plot and is also murdered by De Valera’s henchmen.

De Valera remains working as a British agent long after he is elected President and under their guidance manages to sabotage the Irish economy and keep Ireland neutral during World War Two in order to create anti-Irish feeling in the U.S. By the end of the book the only thing surprising to the reader is that Mr. Turi’s does not claim that De Valera’s masters in the British Government were not themselves being controlled by the Free Masons and the Elders of Zion who secretly control the world!

Does Mr. Turi’s book present any real proof to support these claims? Of course not, but he claims the proof exists – on page 302 Turi actually calls for the exhumation of Collin’s remains to prove he was murdered! On page 298 he quotes a Dr. Singh calling for Griffiths remains to be exhumed to prove he was also murdered. What would be the purpose of these exhumations? On page 462 the need for these exhumations is made clear when Turi calls for De Valera to be given a posthumous trial on charges of “treason, fraud and conspiracy to murder.”

Not content with merely vilifying De Valera, the author also derides a whole host of Republican figures who opposed Collins and the Treaty. Turi often uses rumour innuendo and Pro-Treaty and British propaganda tales of the period to do so. According to Turi: Countess Marcivictz was a coward. De Valera may have had an extra marital affair. Liam Lynch was ‘quite possibly insane’. Oscar Tranor the leader of the I.R.A.’s Dublin brigade was more interested in killing Irishmen than British soldiers. Austin Stack was a British spy since at least 1916. Erskine Childers ‘spent his whole life in the service of England and English Imperialism.’

One of the only leading anti-Treaty republicans who does not suffer character assassination at the pen of Mr. Turi is Cathal Brugha. It would have been incredibly difficult for Mr. Turis to question the integrity and motives of Brugha who had been severely wounded by a hand grenade, as well as by multiple gunshot wounds during the 1916 rising. After suffering these wounds Brugha initially was not expected to survive by his comrades. However since Brugha did survive and became one of Collins’s main rivals for power after 1916 it is surprising that Turi does not implicate him in the conspiracy.
Infact the name Cathal Brugha does not occur once in the whole book!!! Instead, rather confusingly, Brugha is only referred to by the English language translation of his name Charles Burgess.

Turi who boasts that he has read over two hundred books on the subject must have known that Irish and British historians uniformly refer to the man as Cathal Brugha. Intriguingly when Turi quotes passages from other books which mention Cathal Brugha he seems to have deliberately translated the name in the quote from ‘Brugha’ to ‘Burgess’. Is it possible that when Mr. Turi was unable to discredit one of Michael Collins’s main rivals for power that he decided instead to try and airbrush him from the history books using literary slight of hand? Or have I too begun to suffer the effect of Mr. Turi’s love of illogical and absurd conspiracy theories?

As well as having a very thin, convoluted, unrealistic and often contradictory plot, Mr. Turi’s book suffers further from a disorganised chronology which has several large gaps in the first half of the book. The narrative constantly jumping back and forward in time to so often that it reminded me of the television series “Quantum Leap” Amazingly there is no account of the East Clare by-election of 1917 – I cannot think of too many biographies of politicians that do not give an account of the first time they stand successfully for public office! The whole narrative of the book is badly written, confusing and in some places incomprehensible, In the chapter about the Treaty negotiations and the causes and beginning of the Irish Civil War Turi’s thesis that De Valera was a spy gets lost completely, only to re-emerge in the narrative like a nmany headed hydra at a later point.

The language, grammar, terms and descriptive phrases used in the book are very, very poor, and couched in ‘twee’ Irish-American stereotypes of Ireland. This occurs so often as to be annoying and distracting. Ireland is referred to as ‘the Emerald Isle” or the “oulde sod”, books about Irish history are ‘Gaelic history books’, De Valera’s friends and comrades are his ‘buddies’ etc. The author also seems to suffer from difficulties with the geography of Britain and Ireland. The phrases England and Britain are constantly interchanged and confused in the text, on page 258 Turi paradoxically defines Scottish Planters as being “English settlers.” The British Prime Minister of the period Lloyd George is described on page 192 as “Lloyd George, a Welsh [sic] and Celt himself” – surely this should have read: ‘Lloyd George, a Welshman and fellow Celt (like De Valera). In many cases the language appears, to me, to be low brow and crass ie. page 259 “The decision was a slam-dunk, a no brainer”, on page 292 events are “shifted into fast forward”

On page 294 “Modest and frugal, Griffith literally sold the shirt off his back to keep his newspapers alive.” Whilst I can appreciate and agree with the point Turi is apparently(?) trying to make here that Griffith often deprived himself of money which he diverted to ensure the survival of his political newspapers – the sentence quoted suggests that Arthur Griffith went bare-chested to a used shirt traders in Dublin to finance his newspapers!

While I can appreciate that these seemingly grammatical mistakes may be the result of the many cultural and linguistic-dialectic differences between America and Ireland , it should be noted that other American / Irish American historians writing about the same period such as T. Ryle Dwyer and John Borgovono do not use similar phraseology in their work and take some care to tailor it to their Irish readership. I do not mean to ‘nit pick’ or become pedantic in highlighting these grammatical / descriptive errors which seem trivial when taken individually, occur so often through out the text that they become infuriating.

There are no attempts at impartiality of language or tone throughout the book
British soldiers are described as ‘screaming deamons’ Cromwell is the ‘plague of all plagues’. Orangemen and Irish Unionists are ‘Unionist goon’s’ Members of the Anti- Treaty I.R.A. during the Civil War are described as ‘IRA dissidents’ a heavily politicised, and ‘loaded’ modern political term connected with the post 1998 peace process.

De Valera is described by Turoi using imagery which is suggest to my mind the forces of the occult – the implication being as far as I could see that De Valera was a tool of evil. “Eamonn De Valera cast his long black shadow on events…” De Valera’s supposed British allies are “screaming demons”. Page 66 “Eamonn De Valera, forsaking martyrdom, made his Faustian pact with the Devil…” Or if the Prince of Darkness isn’t harsh enough how about Hitler! Page 450 “De Valera’s extremists in the Irish Republican Army were the Irish version of Hitler’s Brown Shirt enforcers.”

The only redeeming features in the whole book are Mr. Turi’s critical examination of the many myth’s surrounding of De Valera’s parentage in Chapter 2, and the examination of De Valera’s poor performance as a military commander during the 1916 Rising in Chapter 4. These deservingly challenge propaganda myths later created around De Valera’s early life and career, by sympathetic historians. Perhaps if Mr. Turi had not indulged in fantastic conspiracy theories, and firmly grounded himself in factual evidence, he might have produced a poor to fair critical biography of De Valera worth reading.

Finally to make matters worse Turi continually makes scathing and insulting references to a whole host of Irish historians and previous De Valera biographers including Longford and O Neill, Desmond Ryan, Joe Whelan, Dorothy Mc Ardle, T.Ryle Dwyer and Tim Pat Coogan. He seemingly regards them all as incompetents for not discovering De Valera’s alleged role as a British spy. These attacks are counter productive to Mr. Turi’s argument, and give the impression that not only is he a ‘conspicary nut’, he is also a bitter ‘crank’.

This book is not a work to be tossed aside lightly – it should hurled away from the reader with great force! It has often been said with regard to publishing that “Paper never refused ink.” I would suggest that if Mr. Turi publishes any other similar works in the future that he uses softer and more absorbent paper! The great tragedy here is that Mr Turi’s unfounded conspiracy ramblings will receive far more media attention and airtime, because of their controversial nature, than more deserving, thought provoking and well researched books on the period that have been recently published such as Terrence O Reilly’s “Rebel Heart - George Lennon Flying Column Commander”, William Sheehan’s “Hearts And Mines” or T.Ryle Dwyers “Michael Collins The Man Who Won The War”

In Turi’s interview with Fiona Audley for the Irish Post newspaper, the author commented about De Valera: “I don’t have enough bad words to say about him.” Having taken the time to read and suffer through all 462 pages of it, it is my humble opinion that the same could be said about Mr. Turi’s book! So I think I’ll end it here…

If the above arguments have failed to convince you that the book is a “feeble effort” ( The authors own modest description. Preface Page xi) then you might be interested in listening to Tim Pat Coogan in debate with Mr. Turi on the Pat Kenny Radio show, available by podcast at the below link.

RSS and atom feeds allow you to keep track of new comments on particular stories. You can input the URL's from these links into a rss reader and you will be informed whenever somebody posts a new comment. hide help

Comments (28 of 28)

Thank you very much for taking the bullet for the rest of us, so that we won't be tempted to waste money out of curiousity.

Sadly this book features on Waterstones best seller list.

Mr Turi has done no original research of his own, instead cannibalising the work of reliable biographers. He actually cites the "Public Record Office" (which has been named the "National Archives" for several years now) but gives no details of documents accessed.

As TPC points out, Dev was despised by Michael Collins who as IRA Director of Intelligence would have had the motive and the means to bring him down.

By your description of it, seems like a big pile of shi*e. I wont buy the book ever but if it ever crosses my path I'll give it a read. I love Tim Pat Coogan and am currently reading his book 'The Troubles'... I'll give the radio interview a listen later and just want to say thanks for the post as Im not living at home any more and am a bit out of the loop...

Unfortunately it is mandatory to read any particular book before one may legitimately critiscise and , as a pensioner, I do not have not the means to purchase but I will be on the waiting list at my local Library.
I will comment briefly ,however, on the previous submissions concerning Mr Turi's book.
I was listening to that Tim Pat Coogan "debate" with him on the Pat Kenny morning radio show on RTE and I have to say that Tim Pat's' "rebuttal" of Turi's claims about De Valera were far from convincing. There certainly was no Coup de Grace from Mr Coogan but I will allow that it was on an early morning programme.
Another , by far the more satisfactory, critiscism came from Mr Ryle Dwyer, the highly acclaimed author of many histories of the period in question, (his latest published work is "Behind the Green Curtain" Re: Ireland's neutrality in WW2) in the IRISH EXAMINER last week (16/11/'09). His summation of Turi's work ? "banshee nonsense" !!
It seems now that after the revisionism and use of spurious sources by the Canadian Peter Hart it is "open season" on Irish History by people like John Turi.

Knowing what we now know and what we have yet to discover about the republican leadership in our recent defeat to the Brits on this island - I pose this question, Is Adams the Devalera or the Collins of our time ???

Hello Redundant Republican,
Fair enough they all abandoned armed struggle to take up constitutional politics to greater and lesser degrees, and in doing so many would argue that they betrayed their principles to get into power. However if you are going to argue that any of them are paid Britis spies I wont dismiss you because of my political beliefs or opinions about their characters but I will ask that you furnish some proof...

Mr. Turi provides no proof to back up his politically motivated wild claims and conspiracies - that is my main objection to his work!

I would not wish to suggest that Adams, Dev or Collins were British agents, my question was simply how will history judge Adams as history cast shadows over Dev and Collins. Dev did not go to London to sign the treaty, he sent the military man. Adams sent Mc Guinness. Is Adams a British spy? I would be of the opinion that the republican movements main difficulties in terms of infiltration was in Belfast. I would be of the opinion that a committed and genuine leader of the republican movement would have been assasinated by British agents. Dev lived to an old age while Collins died young with perhaps knowledge of British agents. Proof, what is proof? When it is impossible to make sense of what has occured then opinion is important.Why was Adams friend and close associate Donaldson assasinated? The war was lost in Belfast, the question is why and who? A book about Dev being a spy over 80 years after the event and when no one cares, will we have to wait until 2100 for questions about Adams or will we use common sense. Sorry I have no proof but I do know that the republican movement was compromised at the highest level and Adams is still alive.

There are parallels to the end of the Civil War in the 'Peace Process'; after years of fighting, people just wanted to get on with their lives, even if it meant a fudged compromise. It's questionable how much active popular support, rather than reluctance to denounce, the IRA had in the years approaching the beginning of the 'Peace Process', given its tactic of bombing civilians in Britain.
So, yet another book that has more sensation than scholarship? File with all the others...

He charges that my book “rallies against the perceived orthodoxy and whole fabric of accepted Irish politics and twentieth century Irish history.” In that regard he is correct, but is Mr. O Ruairc suggesting that an historian should never challenge prevailing public opinion, or only when it applies to Eamon deValera? He fails to comprehend the fact that his “perceived orthodoxy” script was written by deValera and it was the counterfeit republicans of Fianna Fail who acted out the farce of “accepted modern Irish politics and twentieth century Irish history.”

It is understandable, however, that after more than a half-century of deValera propaganda and Fianna Fail lies, Mr. O Ruairc has come to believe deValera to be some sort of Irish folk hero. In fact, the Irish are in national denial as to the dark deeds of deValera.

Throughout his commentary, not once does Mr. Ruairc refute, disprove or contradict a single premise as set forth in my book. His critique is a polemic of name-calling, insults, sarcasm and ridicule in lieu of legitimate historical analysis. In fact, no reviewer of my book to date has disproved, refuted or contradicted my position.

Regarding the misconceptions and misleading statements of Mr. O Ruairc, he dismisses the undeniable results of deValera’s actions in which every major decision of the Great Pretender resulted in enormous benefit to England and monumental disasters to Ireland. He attempts to deflect deValera’s treachery by attributing it to merely “bad luck, chance, incompetence or poor decision-making.”

He scoffs at my contention that the British were fully aware of the 1916 Rising and allowed it to take place in order for the English not to be perceived in American eyes as having initiated another repression of the Irish. His misplaced reference to a “machine gun massacre” was actually the words of Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, a Dublin pacifist, who recognized the obvious British plot to instigate a rebellion. John MacNeill also noted the British scheme to provoke the Irish into insurgency.

I set forth in great detail the fact that the British had access to German secret codes and were privy to the communications between John Devoy and Berlin regarding the plans for the Rising.

Mr. O Ruairc casts aspersions on my assertion that deValera initiated the civil war, not because the Free State Treaty failed to include an Irish Republic or the Irish President’s false claim that it contained an oath of allegiance to the King of England but to prevent Michael Collins from coming to the aid of the Catholics and Nationalists of Northern Ireland who were being terrorized by the Unionists. Though he failed to recognize the conspirator, author Tim Pat Coogan actually set forth the real reason for the civil war. He noted Collins’ fateful words to the IRA men of the North, “With this civil war on my hands, I cannot give you men the help I wish to give and mean to give. I now propose to call off hostilities in the North.” The civil war was a boon for England as deValera created chaos in Southern Ireland before Collins could create chaos in Northern Ireland and it didn’t cost the English a penny or a single soldier. The Irish people paid deValera’s price.

Mr. O Ruairc disregards the incontrovertible fact that deValera and the Dail members abandoned their demand for recognition of an Irish republic on at least four occasions prior to sending the Irish delegation to the London Peace Conference. The Irish delegation presented the final Free State Treaty draft to deValera, the Cabinet and other leaders on December 3, 1920. For more than seven hours of discussion, not once did deValera inform the delegation that he was opposed to the Treaty because it failed to include recognition of an Irish Republic. His only instruction to the delegation was that the oath be amended to the satisfaction of the delegation. DeValera, himself, had proposed two oaths. There was no oath of allegiance to the King in the Free State Treaty, only a promise to be faithful to the King as head of an association (Commonwealth) of which Ireland was but one member.
Three days later, on December 6, deValera flip-flopped and was a ‘born again’ republican fanatic charging that the delegation, Collins and Griffith, in particular were traitors for signing a treaty that did not include recognition of an Irish Republic.

Mr. O Ruairc cannot be serious in denying the economic catastrophe deValera wrought upon the Irish people. It is irrefutable. He also inexplicably does not want the truth of the murders of Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith to see the light of day and growls, “What would be the purpose for these exhumations?”
The greatest hoax deValera and Winston Churchill played on the Irish is the conception that the Irish were neutral during WWII. Mr. O Ruairc fails to acknowledge the disaster that deValera’s phony ‘neutrality’ was to Ireland and its enormous benefit to England. As many as 200,000 Irish flocked to England’s colors to fight against one of the most evil regimes in history. The Irish suffered proportionately more casualties than the English or Americans. Surely, no rational person can believe that if the Nazis won the war, Ireland would not suffer a similar fate as the other conquered small countries. WWII was not only England’s finest hour but also Ireland’s as the Irish set aside centuries of repression and shipped every morsel of surplus food to feed the starving British. Hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women labored in English and Northern Ireland factories producing the sinews of war to sustain England until America could organize her industrial might to relieve the hard-pressed English. DeValera mobilized the entire country to provide England with every necessity Ireland could provide, turning over Ireland’s entire fleet of oil tankers, cooperating militarily, economically and much, much more.

After the war, deValera refused to admit Ireland’s magnificent contribution to the Allied victory over Germany. Mr. O Ruairc also ignores the fact that the Irish President destroyed all records of Ireland’s involvement in WWII thereby depriving Irish historians of valuable insight into deValera’s neutrality scam on the Irish people. The result of his ‘neutrality’ was that partition was etched in stone, Ireland was ostracized as being pro-Nazi and the doors to Irish immigration to America were slammed shut. One million Irish, one fourth the entire population of Ireland, preferred to live in England, the land of the ‘oppressor’ rather than deValera’s dystopia. Ireland was denied membership in the UN, Marshall Plan aid was a pittance and America considered partition to be an internal matter of England and refused to intervene on Ireland’s behalf. Of greater import to the English, however, was that deValera’s ‘neutrality’ and ‘pro-Nazi’ stance destroyed Irish-American political influence and eliminated opposition to Anglo-American cooperation, a repeat of his Irish disaster in America in 1919-20.

Mr. O Ruairc has a fixation on Charles Burgess and objects to my refusal to address him by his adopted Gaelic name of Cathal Brugha. Burgess had been seriously wounded during the 1916 Rising. However, he was temperamentally and intellectually incompetent as Minister of Defense. He was appointed by deValera solely because he could be manipulated by the Irish President and followed deValera in making war on the Irish people. Burgess was insanely jealous of Michael Collins. During the Treaty debates, when war or peace with England was in the balance, Burgess, as Minister of Defense, was expected to report on the capability of the IRA to continue the fight against the English, instead, he unleashed a torrent of abuse on Collins in a public display of jealousy and invective rarely seen in any house of parliament. On other occasions he placed self-interest above Ireland’s welfare. He was hypocritical, petty and vindictive and was a disgrace to Gaelic tradition and that is why I address him by his English roots. Mr. O Ruairc has only to refer to the official records of the Dail Free State Treaty debates to confirm my charges.

Mr. O Ruairc refers to Author T. Ryle Dwyer but fails to note that Mr. Dwyer, in commenting on my book stated, “It is hard to refute what Turi says.” Mr. O Ruairc prefers to quote, Tim Pat Coogan who is in a snit over my taking issue with his conclusions in his book, Eamon deValera, The Man Who Was Ireland. Rather than address the facts as set forth in my book, Mr. Coogan, like Mr. O Ruairc, prefers insults, sarcasm and ridicule instead of historical objectivity.
Furthermore, Mr. Ruairc was critical of my categorizing the counterfeit republicans who followed deValera in making war on their own people as poor imitations of Hitler’s Brown Shirts. After abandoning their demands for recognition of an Irish Republic on at least four occasions, they pontificated their republican credentials and their contempt for the rights of the majority of the Irish people who voted three to one in favor of the Free State Treaty. Under his absurd banner, “The majority has no right to do wrong,” deValera unleashed his counterfeit republicans upon their own countrymen rampaging throughout Ireland murdering, beating, robbing and looting. They burned down the houses of their fellow countrymen solely because they supported the Free State Government and majority rule. They torched Sean McGarry’s home with his children inside. Mrs. McGarry pleaded with the counterfeit republicans to no avail and rushed into the blazing home to rescue her children. One little child died of horrible burns the following morning and Mrs. McGarry suffered serious burns as well. They wrecked newspaper offices because they dared to print news contrary to their liking, destroying printing presses, beating pressmen and setting fire to the buildings. The Hierarchy excommunicated these counterfeit republicans, rightly characterizing them as murderers and assassins. Mr. O Ruairc cannot grasp the significance that deValera, who initiated a civil war over the lack of recognition of an Irish Republic in the Free State Treaty, refused to declare an Irish Republic in all the years he was in office.

It is understandable that Mr. O Ruairc remains silent as to these terrible deeds, for after so many years of Fianna Fail disinformation, he has come to view the traitors as heroes and the real heroes, the true fathers of the Irish nation, Collins and Griffith, as traitors.

He also finds fault with my calling for a posthumous trial of deValera ignoring the fact that deValera himself requested such a trial. John Devoy, the great Irish-American leader, described deValera as “the most malignant man in Irish history.”

I liken myself to the boy who cried, “Look the Emperor has no clothes,” while everyone else is pretending what a fine specimen King deValera makes in all his invisible finery.

A most intriguing book written by a man with access to intelligence and naval experience with a great imagination.

To those who may want to further investigate this subject matter, I would strongly suggest reading the book and then looking to the recent publication if the Dictionary of Irish Biography (in association with the Royal Irish Academy). This may be deemed revisionist history but on the other hand it may relate to archives of a more hidden nature that families of a later generation feel more at ease about sharing with the people of Ireland.

Either way, it is worth accessing.

There are 9 volumes, 9,000 entries and it concerns 9,700 lives of some of the Island of Irelands' silent, hidden and well known personae.

This is now online also. I presume you access the RIA and then gain access.

After all it's standard practice for empire to install it's own men as leaders of countries, or corrupt / bribe / blackmail the reigning leader to do their bidding. Why should Ireland be any different? Especially since we gave them so much trouble. I reckon Collins was the real hero. Dev was the dev-il !!

Is there proof that Dev was a "spy", perhaps the wrong word. He was no James Bond more of a Harry Potter. There will never be proof of British spies at the top level of Irish republicanism because the Brits have been too clever for us and because they are so good at the James Bond stuff. Clap hands for the Brits, they have conned another generation of republicans. Fool me once, shame on you but fool me twice ..........

"Mr. O Ruairc refers to Author T. Ryle Dwyer but fails to note that Mr. Dwyer, in commenting on my book stated, “It is hard to refute what Turi says.” "

What Mr Dwyer actually said was:

So Dev was ‘England’s greatest spy’. Yes, and the devil in disguise too

By Ryle Dwyer

Saturday, October 31, 2009

THE author of England’s Greatest Spy: Eamon de Valera was interviewed by John Green on Radio Kerry during the week. The 470-page book, by John J Turi, will not be published until the last day of November so it is not possible to comment on it.

It seems extraordinary, however, that it is assiduously plugged more than a month before publication. The pre-publicity is causing a sensation.

All of 20 years ago, in my book De Valera: The Man and the Myths, I dealt with a whole series of fictions about the Long Fellow. Many people thought his policies helped Britain, but seriously suggesting that he was doing so deliberately as a British spy is a different matter.

Are the Irish people so stupid that they need some Yank to tell them Dev was a British spy?

At least it was the British intelligence people who suspected that Harold Wilson might have been a Russian spy, and that was before he became prime minister.

Some people seemed to think de Valera was the devil incarnate. In his famous victory speech at the end of the Second World War, Winston Churchill essentially suggested that he was the personification of the devil and evil in Ireland. Churchill did this in his victory speech in May 1945 by repeatedly pronouncing his name as if it was "d’evil Éire."

When asked about his research, Turi did not cite even one piece of information to support his contention that de Valera was an English spy, much less "England’s greatest spy".

In my latest book, Behind the Green Curtain, I argue that de Valera could not have provided more help to the Allies during World War II. But he was acting as head of government and certainly not as a spy.

He authorised Irish diplomats to be used as American spies on the continent. The Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the wartime forerunner of the CIA, formulated questions that were given to the Department of External Affairs in Dublin. These were sent to the diplomats in Berlin, Rome and Vichy, and Dublin forwarded the replies to the OSS.

This was handled by Joe Walshe, secretary of the Department of External Affairs, in cooperation with Ervin Marlin of the OSS. De Valera was helping the Allies because he believed that the defeat of fascism was in Ireland’s interest.

If he were a British spy, why would Churchill try to help the United States in ensuring that de Valera was discredited in American eyes in order to undermine his influence in there? During various interviews in recent days Turi seemed to be jumping to conclusions as a result of what he did not find, rather than what he actually found.

For instance, he states that there is no record of de Valera being tried by the British in 1916. Given the chaos in Dublin in the aftermath of the Easter Rebellion, one should not attach that much significance to the fact that such records have not been preserved.

Turi seems to think it was sinister that de Valera survived and, worse still, that at the moment of truth the Long Fellow had no desire to die for Ireland? He had a pregnant wife and three children, and one should be asking questions about his sanity if he had been anxious to be executed.

There was never any suggestion that de Valera’s trial took more than a matter of minutes in the midst of the confusion of the week after the rebellion, and he was the second last commandant to surrender. The last was Thomas Ashe, arguably the most successful commandant, but the British did not execute him either. The main reason has always been that London asked for the executions to be stopped.

While reading a book on Churchill, Turi initially developed an interest in Michael Collins. "I turned to books about him and became totally smitten with this wonderful person."

The more he read about Collins the more de Valera kept coming up. "Every time he came up it was a disaster for Ireland," Turi told the Irish Post. He therefore decided to write about the Long Fellow "because everything he touched was to the detriment of Ireland."

Was de Valera’s seminal role in enlisting the support of the hierarchy against the conscription campaign in Britain’s interest? The British had to abandon their plans for conscription in Ireland.

De Valera "initiated the civil war," Turi told John Green. Nobody has suggested that de Valera had anything to do with the murder of Field Marshall Sir Henry Wilson whose death sparked Lloyd George and Churchill to insist on the attack on the Four Courts. Moreover, it was Collins who ordered the attack on the Four Courts, not de Valera.

If de Valera was a British spy, why did they try to undermine his new government in 1932? He insisted that Ireland did not owe land annuities to Britain. Neville Chamberlain, the British chancellor of the exchequer, warned cabinet colleagues that de Valera had a good case and Britain might lose if they submitted the case to international arbitration.

Cumann na nGaedheal pleaded with the British not to give in to de Valera, or they would be undermined, so the British initiated the Economic War. This was clearly to undermine the man that Turi would have us believe was England’s greatest spy.

I cannot remember ever hearing anything about Michael Collins in primary or secondary school. I became interested in him while at university in Texas in 1966. I wrote a master’s thesis on the Anglo-Irish Treaty and could hardly have been more critical of de Valera.

IT WAS initially because I was so critical of de Valera that I became interested in the American ambassador’s assessment of him in 1940. David Gray wrote then that de Valera was "probably the most adroit politician in Europe and he honestly believes that all he does is for the good of the country. He has the qualities of martyr, fanatic and Machiavelli. No one can outwit him, frighten or brandish him. Remember that he is not pro-German nor personally anti-British but only pro-de Valera."

While writing a doctoral dissertation on US relations with Ireland during the war, I came across Gray’s manuscript for a book that ran to more than 700 pages in typescript. It was a diatribe against de Valera with little historical merit, other than as an insight into Gray’s own twisted thinking.

Turi has been exhibiting the same approach with his unsupported allegations in his interviews. "I list literally dozens of instances in my book where De Valera’s activities benefited England," Turi told the Irish Post. "Yet I could not find one major decision of his that benefited Ireland."

There have always been people who were unwilling to give de Valera any credit for anything, such as those Irish people who essentially invited the British to wage the Economic War in order to undermine the Long Fellow in the 1930s.

For all his failings, and he had many, he made a major contribution to Irish life in taking the gun out of 26-County politics and asserting the country’s political independence.

Moreover, he did a magnificent job in keeping Ireland out of the Second World War.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Saturday, October 31, 2009

"Mr. O Ruairc casts aspersions on my assertion that deValera initiated the civil war, [...] to prevent Michael Collins from coming to the aid of the Catholics and Nationalists of Northern Ireland who were being terrorized by the Unionists. [...] Tim Pat Coogan actually set forth the real reason for the civil war. He noted Collins’ fateful words to the IRA men of the North, “With this civil war on my hands, I cannot give you men the help I wish to give and mean to give. I now propose to call off hostilities in the North.” The civil war was a boon for England as deValera created chaos in Southern Ireland before Collins could create chaos in Northern Ireland"

Er, let me see if I've got this right... So the pro-Treaty forces were the ones who wanted to fight against partition and the anti-treaty forces were actually fighting for partition? Right. Ookaay... [*backs away slowly*]

In the 'Times on Line' of November 1, 2009, Mr. Dwyer is quoted as stating: "I don't question many of the things Turi says..." In the Irish News of December 19, 2009, Mr. Dwyer is quoted as "admitting that it is hard to refute much of what Turi says... But to say deValera gave information to the British is mind-boggling."

Mr. Dwyer has stated that he doesn't question many ot the things I say and also that it is hard to refute much of what I say but more importantly, he doesn't cite one instance of a false statement or fact that I set forth in my book.

After more than a half century of deValera propaganda and Fianna Fail lies, it is understandable that the Irish people consider deValera to be some sort of folk hero and what I say is "mind-boggling," but true.

James O'Mara stated, "The Irish people are the most easily humbugged people on earth."

Michael Collins was not fighting to end partition at that time. He believed the Boundary Commission Clause of the Free State Treaty would sever the counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh and the city of Derry from Northern Ireland. The severance of those two counties would render Northern Ireland economically untenable and eventually lead to a peaceful settlement of the partition issue.

Collins was actually cooperating with those of the anti-Treaty forces and the Northern IRA who, at that time, were willing to combat the terrorism unleashed upon the Catholics and Nationalists in Ulster by the Protestant militia.

DeValera, by his civil war, prevented Collins from coming to the aid of the Catholics and Nationalists in the North. The British, thanks to deValera, were able to consolidate the Unionist regime without spending a penny or the loss of a single soldier. The Irish people at that time paid the price of partition and they are still paying for deValera's treachery today.

Throughout his many decades in office, deValera never showed the slightest inclination to end partition. He advocated Lloyd George's 'no coercion' policy" and along with his Papist constitution, repeated insults of Protestant values and the discrimination by his administration insured that the Unionists would never voluntarily unite with Southern Ireland.

"In the 'Times on Line' of November 1, 2009, Mr. Dwyer is quoted as stating: "I don't question many of the things Turi says..." In the Irish News of December 19, 2009, Mr. Dwyer is quoted as "admitting that it is hard to refute much of what Turi says... But to say deValera gave information to the British is mind-boggling.""

What "Times Online" actually said was:

From The Sunday Times
November 1, 2009
De Valera ‘was no British spy’
Eithne Shortall
Irish leader Eamon de Valera inspecting troops outside the General Post Office in O'Connell Street, Dublin

Fianna Fail can relax: the party’s founder is in the clear. Leading Irish historians are dismissing a claim made in a new biography that Eamon de Valera was a British spy.

According to John Turi, an American amateur historian, the future taoiseach was “turned” by the British after the Easter Rising in 1916, agreeing to spy for them in return for not being put on trial for his part in the rebellion. Turi claims the Fianna Fail leader’s trip to America in 1919 was his first covert mission for the British. De Valera is accused of destroying the Americans’ positive image of the Irish and scuttling a pro-Ireland senator’s attempt to win a presidential nomination.

The author reckons De Valera’s unstable upbringing and rejection by his mother and uncle, and his dismissal from the priesthood on the grounds of his illegitimacy, made him “a man less than human”. He argues that this gave De Valera a hatred of Ireland and made him susceptible to betraying it. The book ends with a demand for a posthumous trial on charges of treason, treachery and conspiracy to murder.

Several Irish historians and biographers of the former taoiseach have rejected the claims put forward in England’s Greatest Spy, published by Stacey International.

Tim Pat Coogan, author of Long Fellow, Long Shadow, a biography of De Valera and regarded as a harsh critic of the former president, said Turi’s thesis was farcical. Coogan was alarmed at how often his work was cited in the book, and said he hopes nothing he has written was used to substantiate the spy claims.

T Ryle Dwyer, the author of five books on De Valera, said he had never come across evidence of treachery. “I don’t question many of the things Turi says — there are questions about De Valera’s behaviour at the time of the 1916 rising,” Dwyer said.

“His upbringing certainly wasn’t ideal. He was basically abandoned by his mother and had a need to prove himself, and this caused problems. But to say he gave information to the British is mind-boggling.”

Dwyer and Coogan argue that the way that De Valera was treated by successive British prime ministers does not indicate any secret deal. Dwyer added that Winston Churchill believed he was the devil, and pronounced his name “Devil-Eire” to imply it.

Tom Garvin, professor of politics at University College Dublin, said the book sounded like a distorted version of Irish history and rejected its central thesis as “utter nonsense”. He said the suggestion that De Valera was never put on trial after the Rising was rubbish, dismissing Turi’s assertion that a letter written in 1964 by William Wylie, a prosecuting officer, says no hearing took place.

“Wylie did not say anything of the sort. He says exactly the opposite [in his memoir]; that de Valera was condemned,” Garvin said.

The three historians say De Valera escaped execution after the Rising because the British needed to pacify Irish public opinion, and he was not seen as being of particular importance.

Eamon Ó Cuív, his grandson and the community and rural affairs minister, also dismissed the accusation: “The theory is ridiculous and so I have no further comment.”

Turi, a retired US marine married to an Irish woman, said he had expected Irish historians to disagree, but added: “The evidence is so obvious and readily available, it’s amazing to me that Irish writers never came to this conclusion.”

He decided to write the book having set out to research a Michael Collins biography, but soon finding that “every time De Valera popped up, it was a disaster for Ireland”.

The 470-page hardback will have an initial print run of 3,000 copies and go on sale in Ireland and the UK. Publishers plan to release it in America next year.

Charles Powell, the assistant editor of Stacey International, expects the book to sell well. He said the publishers had been slightly concerned by Turi’s theory, but were reassured by his research and referencing.

“We are convinced of the integrity of the work and try to publish books that raise debate and ask questions,” he said.

“A lot of people agree that the decisions de Valera took were counterproductive to the cause he was supposed to be supporting. Whether that was because he was a British spy or because they were just the decisions he made is more difficult to prove.”

How lucky the stupid Irish people are that we now have someone to tell us how our history really occured!

Certainly a hard book to wade through, but my favourite story concerned the death of Arthur Griffith. A cerebral hemorrhage according to the legendary surgeon Oliver St John Gogarty.
Not so, according to Mr Turi. A newspaper in New York claimed that it was poisoning by arsenic, so one of Ireland's pre-eminent physicians was less competent in medicine than an American journalist, and it is the latter's view that Mr Turi regards as authentic.

Just ten years earlier a New York newspaper reported that the Titanic had struck an iceberg but was safely under tow to New York harbour! Another book for Mr Turi perhaps?

Incidentally, arsenic is only lethal and undetectable if administered in minute doses over a long period of time, so you can't fault the British assassins timing. And what does Mr Turi hope to achieve by his demands that the remains of Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins be exhumed? If the alleged arsenic poisoning could not be detected in 1922 then how could it be so nearly a century later? And what would an exhumation of Michael Collins prove other that he had been shot through the head?

"Mr. O Ruairc also ignores the fact that the Irish President destroyed all records of Ireland’s involvement in WWII thereby depriving Irish historians of valuable insight into deValera’s neutrality scam on the Irish people"

Well, he must have missed the Military Archives and the National Archives for a start!

Utter tripe. As a student of modern Irish history I found this book to be a crime against history. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but this book is full of flimsy, unsubstantiated and idiotic claims that Dev was a British spy. I am not in the slightest a Dev apologist and have my own qualms about the man, but this piece of 'history' is as useful to a student of history as a hat is to a duck. Yes, that is how ridiculous it is. The fact that the only other review on this site is from a self entitled 'kid' proves my point. I for one will stick to actual historians' interpretations of modern Irish histoy, thank you. Mr. Turi... tut, tut.

It offers the most logical explanation of the famous Dev/Churchill exchange at the end of WWII. When Churchill attacked Ireland for helping the Germans, why on earth did Dev not reveal the massive assisstance we secretly gave to the Brits? Can anyone who has attacked the book offer a better explanation?

Turi was criticised for quoting eyewitness testimony that Constance Markiewicz grovelled before the Brits in 1916. Can anyone offer any other evidence that she acted bravely after surrendering? The Brits were happy to acknowledge that - for example - Patrick Pearse acted bravely throughout. In the absence of further evidence, a fair minded person would agree that eyewitness testimony from a British officer should not be rubbished, just because it tarnishes the image of a supposed nationalist icon.

The theory that FF was founded by a Brit spy makes their bizarre behaviour more logical.

Turi is a lazy and pretentious author shamelessly plundering the diligent research of other historians. No original evidence is produced. His cliché ridden book is like a cripple entering the Olympics. He shouldn’t have done it.

The musings of this fiction peddling former US Naval Intelligence officer has as much creditability as the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction canard.

"James O'Mara stated, "The Irish people are the most easily humbugged people on earth.""

never a truer word was said - recent financial events provide ample proof of the above statement.

I used to laugh at the yanks for their stupidity - since I moved back to Ireland, I now realise that, for all their faults, the yanks are far less gullible than the thicko very easily-fooled Irish. USers in general have a far better understanding of politics than the average Irish person, and are consequently far more engaged in the political process, and much more willing and able to protest. Just look at the miserable attendance at political protests in recent months

Just in case anyone chooses to doubt my assessment of the political and financial nouse of the thicko Irish people - compare the Greek reaction to the thicko Irish one, while contemplating the very grave implications of the 2 graphs below

Thicko Irish stil don't relaise how F**ked they are compared to other In-Debt europeans

In the Case against Eamon deValera, I present a series of facts setting forth the former Irish President’s work on behalf of England and the British intrigue in sustaining deValera’s political fortunes. This chain of events begins with his failure to be tried for his part in the 1916 Easter Rising and culminates in his condolence call on the death of Adolph Hitler in 1945.
Each action by deValera on behalf of England are links in a chain of events in which I establish, in a clear and convincing manner, a preponderance of evidence leading to the only rational conclusion as to his treachery. He left behind him a trail of duplicity, betrayal and disasters that reverberates throughout Ireland to this day.
Not one historian/writer has refuted a single fact set forth in my book. Rather than contradict my allegations, they attempt to deflect my charges against deValera and attack me personally.
That is understandable, however, for after more than a half century of deValera’s lies and Fianna Fail propaganda, deValera was repackaged out of the cloth of a traitor, liar, thief, informer and murderer, yes, a murderer, into an Irish folk hero and the true heroes, Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith portrayed as traitors.
DeValera is the Poster Boy for the ‘Big Lie’ technique. With malice aforethought, the Irish President initiated war against his own people under completely false colors and his being elected to the highest office in the land is testimony to the effectiveness of his propaganda machine and the brainwashing of the Irish people.

John J. Turi
Author: England’s Greatest Spy, Eamon deValera

Circumstantial Evidence: PROSECUTION EXHIBIT ONE OF THIRTY-SIX

Circumstantial Evidence: The rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance (of deValera’s work on behalf of the English) must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of deValera can be safely drawn.
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid and less important than direct evidence (eyewitnesses, etc.) which is mistakenly considered more powerful than circumstantial evidence. The fact is most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence that links the criminal to the crime.

The bizarre and suspicious circumstances of Eamon deValera’s “escape” from execution for his part in the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin has been distorted by Irish writers into a heroic, solitary vigil. The truth is quite different, however, for deValera never faced a court martial for his part in the Rising. Nevertheless, that did not prevent him and Irish writers from trumpeting his phony claim that he had been tried, convicted, sentenced to death and reprieved at the last moment into a political bonanza throughout his career.
There is no record, no witness, not a scintilla of evidence that he had ever appeared before a court martial except the word of a consummate liar, Eamon deValera himself. The British National archives at Kew outside London have the records of more than a hundred courts martial but there is not a mention of a deValera trial. The men deValera claimed had been tried with him refused to corroborate his claim
Despite calling deValera a liar on numerous occasions, author Tim Pat Coogan, and other Irish commentators continue to this day to ignore the prosecutor of the Irish rebels in 1916, William E. Wylie’s attestation denying that deValera ever stood trial.
Wylie categorically denied deValera was tried confirming the fact that deValera could not have been convicted, sentenced to death or reprieved at the last moment as he claimed. Wylie was such a well-respected jurist that he served as a judge under both the William Cosgrave and deValera administrations. He was even held in high esteem for his honesty and fair treatment by the rebels that he prosecuted in 1916.
In macabre gallows humor, the night before deValera claimed he had been court martialed, his fellow prisoners held a mock trial in which he was found guilty, sentenced to death and executed as his comrades mimicked a firing squad by a staccato of clapping hands that sent deValera into uncontrollable hysteria. This imitation execution shattered his nerves and the overwrought and agitated deValera verged on a nervous breakdown.
However, less than 24 hours later, an actual court martial held less fear for him than his jailhouse trial by his comrades. On the eve of his alleged execution, he wrote jocular letters to former acquaintances informing them that he had been tried, sentenced to death and was to be executed in the morning and that he could no longer play cards with them. Not a word to wife and children left his pen that allegedly fatal night or for weeks afterward.
Equally dubious was why the English encouraged this charade by placing deValera in Kilmainham Jail as they did with convicted rebels thereby rigging the appearance that he had been tried. Furthermore, if deValera was allegedly such a thorn in the side of the British for so many years, why didn’t they expose his phony claim to having been tried, convicted, sentenced to death and reprieved at the last moment?
In a letter dated, April 30, 1964, Wylie stated; “I think I should record an incident that happened yesterday in the ante room before the Punchestown Lunch (a horse breeders and racing association). The President (deValera) spoke to me and said, ‘You prosecuted me in 1916 and a man is inquiring from me at present what I said and how I defended myself at that time. I cannot recollect anything about it or who was there or what was said. Do you remember?’
“I very bluntly said, ‘You were not prosecuted at that time and there is nothing to remember!’”
Ten years later, Lord Longford and Thomas O’Neill, deValera’s official biographers, stated that deValera recalled his court martial in great detail. The obvious question then arises, in light of Wylie’s disclaimer, why was deValera lying in writing to former acquaintances portraying himself as standing a lonely vigil awaiting execution in the morning when he knew it was an outright lie?
Adding to the deValera fantasy, Irish writers credited deValera, falsely, with inflicting half of all British casualties during that tumultuous week. Technically, the Mount Street Bridge area was within his area of command, but it was Michael Malone and his valiant band that were solely responsible for so many British casualties. DeValera had refused to come to Malone’s aid or to provide him with additional men, arms or food.
Prime Minister H.H. Asquith’s criteria for inflicting the death penalty corresponded with General John Maxwell’s, i.e., rebel leaders who had signed the Proclamation, leaders of men responsible for the shooting down of His Majesty’s troops (deValera) or were guilty of a murder outside the Dublin jurisdiction were to receive the ultimate penalty.
Furthermore, Asquith declared that he was opposed to deferential treatment for those individuals guilty of similar offenses. Irish writers again failed to explain the deferential treatment of deValera over that of executed men like Willie Pearse and Roger Casement who hadn’t so much as fired a shot during the Rising or 19-year-old Sean Hueston, Edward Daly, Michael O’Hanrahan, Cornelius Colbert and Michael Mallin, who played minor roles in the rebellion. In a dubious move, the British executed the commandants of the First, Second and Fourth Battalions despite their having provided meager resistance to the military response to the Rising but the commandant of the Third Battalion, who was credited with inflicting half of all British casualties, was not even tried.
Implausible and suspicious, however, was why General Maxwell never ordered an investigation into the bloodbath at Mount Street Bridge. An inquest was held on the murder of the pacifist, Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, but the English never posed a question as to who was responsible for the massacre of so many of His Majesty’s troops at Mount Street Bridge.
In order to mollify the suspicious circumstances surrounding the English decision to spare deValera’s life, Irish writers conjured up numerous scenarios, all proven false, as to why he was not executed. The question then arises: “What did the English expect of deValera and what did he do for them for sparing his life?” No Irishman in history ever did more for England than Eamon deValera. Long-time English moles, Alfredo Scappaticci and Denis Donaldson, were mere pinpricks to Irish interests compared to deValera. John Devoy, Ireland’s champion in America, proposed his epitaph: ‘DeValera is the most malignant man in Irish history.”
Another mystery surrounding the 1916 Easter Rising: What is there that is so secret about the Rising that all records were sealed for one hundred years until 2016? Basically, all the details are known except why deValera was not tried and executed. The British involvement in aiding and abetting the Rising has been well-documented as well as their access to the German codes. American participation in divulging correspondence providing critical information regarding the date, gun-running and location of the landing of the arms has been widely reported. So, why the embargo on the Rising?
A criterion in rendering a decision based on circumstantial evidence is quite simple: what would a reasonable person of average intelligence conclude by this link in the chain of events?
What do you think?